Advertisement

Perceived Image Quality Measurement of State-of-the-Art Noise Reduction Schemes

  • Ewout Vansteenkiste
  • Dietrich Van der Weken
  • Wilfried Philips
  • Etienne Kerre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4179)

Abstract

In this paper we compare the overall image quality of 7 state-of-the-art denoising schemes, based on human visual perception. A psycho-visual experiment was set up in which 37 subjects were asked to score and compare denoised images. A perceptual space is constructed from this experiment through multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques using the perceived dissimilarity and quality preference between the images and the scaled perceptual attributes bluriness and artefacts.

We found that a two-dimensional perceptual space adequately represents the processed images used in the experiment, and that the perceptual spaces obtained for all scenes are very similar. The interpretation of this space leads to a ranking of the filters in perceived overall image quality. We can show that the impairment vector, whose direction is opposite to that of the quality vector, lies between the attribute vectors for bluriness and artefacts, which on their account form an angle of about 35 degrees meaning they do interact. A follow-up experiment allowed us to determine even further why subjects preferred one filter over the other.

Keywords

Noisy Image Attribute Vector Preference Score Stimulus Position Monotonic Transformation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dabov, K., Foi, A., Katkovnik, V., Egiazarian, K.: Image denoising with block-matching and 3D filtering. In: Image Processing: Algorithms and Systems V, 6064A-30, IST/SPIE Electronic Imaging, San Jose, CA (to appear) (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donoho, D.L., Johnstone, I.M.: Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika 81(3), 425–455 (1994)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Escalante-Ramirez, B., Martens, J.B., de Ridder, H.: Multidimensional Characterization of the Perceptual Quality of Noise-reduced Computed Tomography Images. J. Visual Comm. Image Representation 6, 317–334 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foi, A., Dabov, K., Katkovnik, V., Egiazarian, K.: Shape-Adaptive DCT for Denoising and Image Reconstruction. In: Proc. SPIE Electronic Imaging 2006, Image Processing: Algorithms and Systems V, 6064A-18, San Jose (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guerrero-Colon, J.A., Portilla, J.: Two-Level Adaptive Denoising Using Gaussian Scale Mixtures in Overcomplete Oriented Pyramids. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICIP conference, Genoa, Italy, September 2005, pp. 105–108 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kayagaddem, V., Martens, J.B.: Perceptual Characterization of Images Degraded by Blur and Noise: experiments. Journal of Opt. Soc. Amer. A. 13, 1178–1188 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martens, J.-B.: Image Technology Design, ch. 5. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pizurica, A., Philips, W.: Estimating probability of presence of a signal of interest in multiresolution single- and multiband image denoising, A Joint Inter- and Intrascale Statistical Model for Bayesian Wavelet Based Image Denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Portilla, J., Strela, V., Wainwright, M., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image Denoising using Scale Mixtures of Gaussians in the Wavelet Domain. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 12(11), 1338–1351 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rooms, F.: Nonlinear Methods in Image Restoration Applied to Confocal Microscopy. Ph.D thesis, Ghent University (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sendur, L., Selesnick, I.W.: Bivariate Shrinkage With Local Variance Estimation. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 9(12), 438–441 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sendur, L., Selesnick, I.W.: Bivariate Shrinkage Functions for Wavelet-Based Denoising Exploiting Interscale Dependency. IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing 50(11), 2744–2756 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van De Ville, D., Nachtegael, M., Van der Weken, D., Kerre, E.E., Philips, W., Lemahieu, I.: Noise Reduction by Fuzzy Image Filtering. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 11(4), 429–436 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van der Weken, D., Nachtegael, M., Kerre, E.E.: Using Similarity Measures and Homogeneity for the Comparison of Images. Image and Vision Computing 22(9), 695–702 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewout Vansteenkiste
    • 1
  • Dietrich Van der Weken
    • 2
  • Wilfried Philips
    • 1
  • Etienne Kerre
    • 2
  1. 1.TELIN Dept.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Dept. of Applied MathematicsGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations